Some Kind Of Joke

Some thoughts on recent news that I was catching up on during my stay in the wireless-house in Dar:

Some focus on Africa in the Washington Post last week - African Pilagers

One of those 'overviews of hellish continent where bad leaders come to drag further into hell' articles. A lot of truth to this of course, but got me thinking of the way these leaders, bad as they are, are viewed by the main stream media (MSM). For starters, here's an exerpt from a discussin with the author that took place the following day:

Washington, D.C.: I have four questions, mainly on Zimbabwe and Mugabe:
1. If
Mugabe and his cronies have stashed millions outside the country, are there no
mechanisms of freezing these looted funds or even making the foreign Banks
accountable for, NOW rather wait until Mugabe is deposed.
2. If Taylor has
been brought to book for picking the fight with the international community, why
not Mugabe. The land grabbing affected not only Zimbabweans. He also openly
challenged Blair and Bush. Why is the world not taking Mugabe to book. To me, I
think the reason is because Mugabe still has friends (Mbeki etc) among African
leaders whilst Taylor no longer has any friends to shield him.
3. There is
another piece in Outlook on (the effects of)lobbyists and Equatorial Guinea. I
think these are the people who should be taken to task because they are
perpetrating the atrocities of the dictators.
4. I agree with you that the
slashing of coverage on Africa by major news organisations has contributed to
failure by the international community to police these dictators. Nobody also
talks about the deposed Ethiopian leader being shielded by Mugabe.

Douglas
Farah: There are some efforts to get at the money of dictators, but they are
underfunded, not a priority and rely greatly on international cooperation. The
U.S. is not the only country that ignores Africa. most of Europe does too,
except to protect direct national investments. If France and Belgium and others
are not willing to go after the money, it will not work and does not work.

Beyond the fact that the journalist barely answered the question - his responses lacked depth throughout - the question itself illustrates how MSM audiences have been trained to view African leaders: Dictators and looters with cronies, off-shore accounts, and regional allies who protect them. Now, tell me which world leaders this DOESN'T describe? None by my count, but when it comes to Africa journalists and audiences practically refuse to look beyond said leader.

More from the original article:

...one of Africa's most astonishing stories of failure--Robert Mugabe of
Zimbabwe. In recent years Mugabe, who took office in 1980 as a national hero,
has gradually strangled his nation's political life and economy. He now controls
the closest thing the region has to the Disneyland for terrorists and
transnational criminal groups that Taylor created in Liberia.

I realize Mr. Farah was pressed for space, but can we at least get some examples of this strangle-hold (they're not too hard to come up with)? Also, what about the 'transnational terrorists' Mugabe intercepted on their way to incite a coup in Equatorial Guinea? I hate defending the guy, but if journalists would challenge themselves and their readers to explore the politics and array of decisions made by these tyrants, then we'd have a better chance at ending their tyrrany.

Under Mugabe's despotic rule, Zimbabwe, long a net exporter of food with a
vital economy and functional health and educational facilities, teeters on the
edge of starvation. The nation has one of the highest HIV/AIDS infection rates
in the world.

This doesn’t get deep enough into the issue and is symbolic of MSM media’s approach to Africa: Just mention despots, starvation, and HIV/Aids and the reader will know what you mean when you say "Africa." Rather than disecting a ruler’s decisions and the complex factors that lead to corruption and despotism we simply rule that Africa’s problems all come down to their tyrranical leaders. Is this an improvement over those who trace all of Africa’s problems to colonialism (and are highly condemned for doing so)?

A forum at Wits University, where I worked earlier in the trip in Jo'burg, recently brought former African leaders together to discuss issues of corruption and leadership on the continent. While clearly more progressive than the above write-offs, which basically discourage discussion, the article on the forum is still packed with quotes to illustrate the same laziness I cite above:

The pointed questions included a query from the moderator to former Kenyan
leader Daniel arap Moi. "Mr Moi, corruption, Kenya -- any regrets?" he asked, to
the cheers of the audience. After asking for the question to be repeated,
drawing chuckles from the crowd, Moi responded, "Of course corruption is a
deadly thing that has destroyed many nations."

The unwillingness of journalists to fully disect the problems perpetrated and faced by African leaders is a direct cause of the above ridiculousness with Moi. The question assumes the "Africa=Corruption" rhetoric perpetrated by the MSM to be dogma and lacks real depth to the point that it's easy for Moi to avoid. Meanwhile, both Moi and the audience are able to see corruption in Africa as some kind of joke, something that can't be helped, and surely something that can not be solved.

As I said in the Zimbabwe posts, I despise a great deal of what Mugabe has done in the country and believe there is a case to bring him up on charges in an international court. However, this recent trip to Zim. opened my eyes to the vast contours of his campaign (for worse and not-so-worse) there and to the complex politics that created him. Additionally, I came to see that replacing him with a bumbling opposition that many citizens don't trust wouldn't solve Zimbabwe's problems and would probably make them worse. Further, how will the international community justify to Zimbabweans and Africans in general Robert Mugabe on trial for crimes against humanity while Ian Smith (the former dictator of Rhodesia) sips gin n' tonics on his farm in Gweru?

The MSM would have us believe that corruption, human rights violations, and crumbling economies in Africa are almost entirely the result of maniacal leadership and wants to convince us that deposing said leader and placing them on trial ought to do the trick. Many of these nations are currently experiencing a second or third generation of despotic rule - clearly it's not this easy, so let's figure out why.